And That’s Not All

Sad DogAlso on page 1:  A horrible headline reading “Abuses Dog Paths of Young Magazine ‘Crews.'”

Of course, everyone seeing the paper this morning assumed someone was found abusing dogs.  As in “Man Abuses Dog.”  My first thought:  Why would they put that on the front page?  So, some idiot in Brooklyn smacked his mutt around the backyard and the neighbors called the cops.  Oy.  I’m getting weary of this.  It makes it hard to eat breakfast. 

It took me a few minutes.  Read “abuses” with the “s” sound, not the “z” sound.  Could they possibly be using “dog” as a verb?  What is this, 1954?  Who says “dogs” anymore?  “Hounded,” maybe.  But “dog?”  I don’t think so.  Next, we have to figure out the meaning of “Young Magazine ‘Crews.'”  What in the world is a magazine crew and why would they be hounded by abuses?  To make it worse, the little subhead reads “Door to Door:  Long Days, Slim Rewards.”  Oh, so it must be a piece about the tough job of working on a “magazine crew,” whatever that is.  But wait, no, it’s about them being abused, which I think would be the main issue, not that it’s a tough way to make a living.  Obviously, being beaten silly would far outweight having a long day with low pay.  Many of us work a long day with low  pay.  But I haven’t been whipped with a USB cable lately.

So the article is confused.  It’s not really clear what the point is.  And while it’s a troubling issue, there must be absolutely no news coming out of Iran or Afghanistan or Korea or Cuba today for this thing to appear on Page 1.  Why magazines?  Why not have them sell life insurance policies?  Isn’t that a little more lucrative than selling a $14 subscription to Road & Track?  If you’re going to be torturing people, why not go for the high-commission stuff, like cars or Ming vases?

And here’s one more loser article:  Front page of the Business section.  A conference at Yale about global warming.  The reporter tells us that when intellectuals get together, “you can be pretty sure things are about to get nasty.”  Whoa, I can’t wait to read this article.  It’s sounds crazy!

When the brainiacs meet, we learn that “the two sides went at it in the dignified, vicious way that academics do.”  Here we go, let’s hear it!!  We still haven’t gotten any meat yet, just appetizers, and now we have to turn the page to the inside for the pay dirt… here we go… “then came the juicy stuff:  the Stern Review ‘commits cruel and unusual punishment on the English language.'” 

That’s it?  No, hang on, there’s more.  Soon we find that “this was fairly tame compared with the comments of another Yale economist” who actually compared his opponent to “The Wizard of Oz,” adding “my job is to be Toto.”  OUCH!  These guys are vicious!  I bet the recipient of that barb is still smarting!  Whoo-wee.  Wait.  That makes no sense.  Was Toto somehow The Wizard’s arch-rival?  I don’t remember that.  Oh, I guess he pulled the curtain thing aside, sort of.  Oh, so smart guy #2 showed that #1 had no clothes.  Or his theories didn’t.  Oh.  Funny.  I get it now.  Sorry, false alarm.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *